|
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: I (W5TIT) have an appropriate callsign (W5TIT). The word "tit" (not the callsign W5TIT) is not (the word tit) appropriate for use on the amateur radio bands (but the callsign W5TIT is). And, the word "tit" is *not* used on the amateur radio bands. Well, not that I (W5TIT) know of anyway. The callsign W5TIT is used on the amateur radio bands and is quite an appropriate callsign (W5TIT that is). How can I (W5TIT) be more appropriate than that? Kim W5TIT Kim: Yeah, it's so "appropriate" that Riley Hollingsworth said that your decision to request such a call sign has the potential to bring the ARS "...one step closer to extinction." Somehow, I think I value his judgement much more than yours. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Oh, I don't know that he had any correspondence with the FCC; in fact I highly doubt it. The Riley Hollingsworth email was a direct response from him to me, and Larry has treasured it ever since :) Kim W5TIT Kim: There's no doubt about that! It takes pride of place among my archive of gems from my years on rrap, and there are very few of them, indeed! I hereby thank you for providing it, and subsequently verifying it's authenticity. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
[THIS IS THE PART WHERE KIM QUOTES THE PART OF RILEY'S E-MAIL WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD:] (snip) (snip) While that's true, just because a person has a right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it on every occasion. While the call sign may fit the constitution, for every instance where a parent or uncle or grandparent doesn't want a young person to get involved in Ham Radio because of something they hear on the bands, then you have taken the ARS one step closer to extinction. Then we can sit around and debate what happened to all those Amateur frequencies that industry bought at auction---debating, of course, on the internet and cellular because that'll be all we have left. The first amendment will still be alive and well, just as it is now, tho, if that's any consolation. (snip) Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT (CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS (TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar callsigns, are not exactly unique. Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign. Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters "TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT (CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS (TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar callsigns, are not exactly unique. Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I "took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided to take a dislike to my callsign. Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude; or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to express it. Kind of like when I say something that would--under normal conditions--stand on its own without the chance of drawing fi just because it was me that said it, there is disagreement that will be found for it. I think it's all that "other stuff" that comes into play. Riley was probably closer to having a real opinion about my callsign than Larry or anyone else here is. He was honest and forthright about it, and dignified in his response. Larry seems to think it's "disrespectful" to disagree with Riley's opinion--why I don't know. Riley is a person just like anyone else and is entitled to his opinion. And, since the ARS is no closer to exctinction today than it was prior to my ever getting a license, I totally disagree with Riley. Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign. Oh, I can. If they're prone to "protecting" their little tyke from the evils of the world--in every way but actually dealing with the little tyke, i.e., making it everyone else's fault but their own that their little tyke is actually a little monster. ;) Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters "TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Fact ot the matter is my callsign is not vulgar, it is not disrespectful, it is not inappropriate. It's nothing more than a vanity callsign that brings out other peoples' vanity (here in this newsgroup anyway) way more than it even expresses my own :o And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I used to do that! ;) Kim W5TIT |
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT (CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS (TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar callsigns, are not exactly unique. Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I "took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided to take a dislike to my callsign. Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude; or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to express it. The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to support your observation, Kim. Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign" that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the callsign): "It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues." This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him - it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package', as it were. Dave, in his recent posts, appears to harbour similar feelings :) Kind of like when I say something that would--under normal conditions--stand on its own without the chance of drawing fi just because it was me that said it, there is disagreement that will be found for it. I think it's all that "other stuff" that comes into play. Riley was probably closer to having a real opinion about my callsign than Larry or anyone else here is. He was honest and forthright about it, and dignified in his response. Larry seems to think it's "disrespectful" to disagree with Riley's opinion--why I don't know. Riley is a person just like anyone else and is entitled to his opinion. And, since the ARS is no closer to exctinction today than it was prior to my ever getting a license, I totally disagree with Riley. Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign. Oh, I can. If they're prone to "protecting" their little tyke from the evils of the world--in every way but actually dealing with the little tyke, i.e., making it everyone else's fault but their own that their little tyke is actually a little monster. ;) Anyone who believes that they can protect their youngsters from bad language and sexual references by censoring what they see is deluding themselves. They will hear worse things at the local schooltard than they will on TV, radio or (gasp) RRAP.... Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters "TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? They will defiantly state "of course not - we treat everyone equally". lol. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Fact ot the matter is my callsign is not vulgar, it is not disrespectful, it is not inappropriate. It's nothing more than a vanity callsign that brings out other peoples' vanity (here in this newsgroup anyway) way more than it even expresses my own :o And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I used to do that! ;) Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
Fact ot the matter is my callsign is not vulgar, it is not disrespectful, it is not inappropriate. It, like those other call signs mentioned, is in very bad taste. But then what else should we expect of you? |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters "TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ No it only becomes vulgar when chosen as a vanity call for the purpose of "getting in someone's face". If a person were to choose it because there name was something like "Tonya Irene Tidwell" and they wanted their initials, it is not vulgar. However parents are often careful not to name their children such that the initials would give rise to unwelcome teasing and other problems. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except one, a club call). The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters "TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. Would Riley say those callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" Would Jim omit those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ No it only becomes vulgar when chosen as a vanity call for the purpose of "getting in someone's face". Which is the exact reason kim chose that call. Nothing more than to call attention to herself. Some people have to resort to those type of things for any recgonition. |
Leo wrote:
You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in conversation. Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana :) ) and see if they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking about the day before...... Actually that doesn't seem like a very good example, "Leo". You'd get the same result whether the guy wore the banana in the front or in the rear of his pants. Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Do you practice being an [word deleted] , Dave? You must...because you're nearly perfect at it. Herr Robust is without imperfection in that regard... Did you ever notice that those who do ice-skating commentary are often former ice skating champions? that those who do NFL commentary are usually former professional football players? I think you've found your area of expertise, Leonard. Dave K8MN |
William wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Why not admit that you fall short of being able to read and understand? At the end of the day, we learn that only Dave has understanding and everyone else has problems. Not really. All we've learned is that someone who isn't sure of his name believes that he is "everyone else". Dave K8MN |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:58:25 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: Leo wrote: You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in conversation. Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana :) ) and see if they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking about the day before...... Actually that doesn't seem like a very good example, "Leo". You'd get the same result whether the guy wore the banana in the front or in the rear of his pants. um - I think that putting the banana in the back of the pants might send a very different message, "Dave". And elicit a very different reaction. In front, they'd probably be embarassed by the obvious -um- masculinity that appears to be showing. Red faces, can't keep the eyes off it - like a big magnet.... In back - well, they'd hear what the guy had to say alright, but they's probably never stop laughing when they watched him walk away. Some may even be horrified.... One of these, though, would cause folks to stare at the guy in a similar way to that experienced by many well endowed women every day - you don't think that the banana in the back of the pants' would do that.....do you? YMMV! Dave K8MN 73, Leo |
Dave Heil wrote:
Leo wrote: You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in conversation. Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana :) ) and see if they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking about the day before...... Actually that doesn't seem like a very good example, "Leo". You'd get the same result whether the guy wore the banana in the front or in the rear of his pants. ROFL! And *that* kind folks, is the retort of the week! Good one Dave. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Leo wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:58:25 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: Leo wrote: You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in conversation. Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana :) ) and see if they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking about the day before...... Actually that doesn't seem like a very good example, "Leo". You'd get the same result whether the guy wore the banana in the front or in the rear of his pants. um - I think that putting the banana in the back of the pants might send a very different message, "Dave". And elicit a very different reaction. In front, they'd probably be embarassed by the obvious -um- masculinity that appears to be showing. Red faces, can't keep the eyes off it - like a big magnet.... In back - well, they'd hear what the guy had to say alright, but they's probably never stop laughing when they watched him walk away. Some may even be horrified.... One of these, though, would cause folks to stare at the guy in a similar way to that experienced by many well endowed women every day - you don't think that the banana in the back of the pants' would do that.....do you? The whole argument is kind of moot, Leo. Some women seek out the attention, witness padded bras and surgical disfigurement that some women go through in order to be stared at. I think the best defense against someone who leers is to simply mention it. Most will be mortified, and those that aren't are jerks anyhow. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Fact ot the matter is my callsign is not vulgar, it is not disrespectful, it is not inappropriate. Kim: In fact, it is all of the above, but, I guess you're entitled to your delusions. It's nothing more than a vanity callsign that brings out other peoples' vanity (here in this newsgroup anyway) way more than it even expresses my own :o What it is bringing out is other people's disgust. However, anyone who would have the poor taste to request such a call sign would also not be very likely to latch on to other people's negative reaction to it, except for whatever sick pleasure you derive from it. And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I used to do that! ;) Don't look now, Kim, but you're a No-code Technician. There is no way you can "work DX and pileups" on HF unless you were operating as a third party using your OM's privileges, and that would also require the use of his call sign. Oh, yeah, six meters. Sure, I DX and pileups are possible there, but I rather suspect you were talking about HF. Please give us a run-down on your OM's VHF DX'ing capabilities. That should be a good one. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: (snip) While that's true, just because a person has a right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it on every occasion. While the call sign may fit the constitution, for every instance where a parent or uncle or grandparent doesn't want a young person to get involved in Ham Radio because of something they hear on the bands, then you have taken the ARS one step closer to extinction. Then we can sit around and debate what happened to all those Amateur frequencies that industry bought at auction---debating, of course, on the internet and cellular because that'll be all we have left. The first amendment will still be alive and well, just as it is now, tho, if that's any consolation. (snip) Thanks for posting this again, Larry. I didn't say anything when I first read it, but I remember having some doubts - doubts which still linger to this day. The most obvious is why Riley singled out Kim for this admonishment, without mentioning W4TIT (VA), W6TIT (TX), K5TIT (FL), K6TIT (CA), N0TIT (FL), N4TIT (FL), W1ASS (MA), W2ASS (MA), W4ASS (NC), W5ASS (TX), and similar callsigns. In other words, Kim's callsign, and similar callsigns, are not exactly unique. Dwight: Obviously, Riley was responding to Kim's specific inquiry regarding her own call sign. It is likely that he would have also found those particular call signs to be of questionable appropriateness in a family-oriented hobbyist radio service. Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign. The "context" is self-evident. It is a well-known vulgarity referring to a woman's breasts in a connotation which is generally considered to be of a sexual nature. Finally, I noticed most of the callsigns above belong to males (all except one, a club call). Maybe so, but that doesn't make them any less objectionable. The absence of any comment about those callsigns (from Riley, you, or others here) makes me wonder if a callsign with the letters "TIT" only becomes vulgar when used by a woman. You have just seen me raise the issue of the objectionable nature of those particular call sign suffixes, regardless of the sex of the holder. Would Riley say those callsigns bring Ham radio "one step closer to extinction?" I would not presume to speak for Riley -- why don't you ask him? Would Jim omit those callsigns from his list (the topic this thread spun off from)? Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? Yes, I would. Even if those call signs were issued sequentially, there is no reason for the licensee to keep them and use them on the air if they are of an objectionable nature. The FCC would certainly honor their request for a call sign reassignment. Anyone who kept and used such a call would be subject to the same questions regarding their motives as is Kim. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: No it only becomes vulgar when chosen as a vanity call for the purpose of "getting in someone's face". If a person were to choose it because there name was something like "Tonya Irene Tidwell" and they wanted their initials, it is not vulgar. (snip) However, given the topic of this discussion (children and the ARS one step closer to extinction), how is one supposed to know the difference between the in your face "TIT" and the "TIT" initials? In the end, without a specific context, it's just a callsign. And how would a callsign bring the ARS one step closer to extinction? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign. The "context" is self-evident. It is a well- known vulgarity referring to a woman's breasts in a connotation which is generally considered to be of a sexual nature. (snip) The "vulgarity" and "of a sexual nature" is self-evident to you, Larry. Funk & Wagnals describes "tit" as "teat, breast or nipple." Princeton University's WordWeb defines "tit" as "either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman" or "the small projection of a mammary gland." And, of course, both mention a "small insectivorous bird." Many farm animals have teats or "tits," but most don't consider them to be "of a sexual nature." (snip) Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? Yes, I would. Even if those call signs were issued sequentially, there is no reason for the licensee to keep them and use them on the air if they are of an objectionable nature. The FCC would certainly honor their request for a call sign reassignment. Anyone who kept and used such a call would be subject to the same questions regarding their motives as is Kim. Then you have a lot of aggressive questioning to do. In addition to the examples given before (containing either "TIT" and "ASS"), I found about a dozen more with the same suffixes and several dozen more with other questionable suffixes (GAY, FAG, LEZ, CUM, SEX, and so on). At this stage in the search, I suspect there may eventually be several hundred callsigns you might object to. Given that, and the amount of time you've spent just questioning Kim alone, you may have decades of aggressive questioning still to do before you finish the entire list. Of course, the more logical approach would to discuss this with the FCC instead. After all, if getting rid of "questionable" callsigns in a "family-oriented hobbyist radio service" is your true goal, that would be the most appropriate, and effective, way to do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Leo" wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote: Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I "took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided to take a dislike to my callsign. Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude; or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to express it. The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to support your observation, Kim. (snip) Your message didn't show up on my server, Kim. So I'll use Leo's message (thanks, Leo) to post my response. Anyway, yes, I also seem to remember your callsign wasn't an issue until after you disagreed with Larry and friends. Only at that point did they decide to focus on your callsign to distract from the counter-arguments you made. However, regardless of how it started, that is certainly how your callsign is being used now. It now seems Larry and some of his friends would rather belittle your callsign than seriously respond to your comments on various issues. Of course, some, on the other hand, are simply using your callsign in the same manner as the codswallop of the typical newsgroup troll (including Larry on occasion). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I used to do that! ;) Don't look now, Kim, but you're a No-code Technician. There is no way you can "work DX and pileups" on HF unless you were operating as a third party using your OM's privileges, and that would also require the use of his call sign. Oh, yeah, six meters. Sure, I DX and pileups are possible there, but I rather suspect you were talking about HF. Please give us a run-down on your OM's VHF DX'ing capabilities. That should be a good one. 73 de Larry, K3LT "Don't look now, Larry" but I am a CODED Tech+. Don't even tell me you have missed that for the past umpteenth years! I have been a CODED Tech+ nearly since the beginning of being an amateur. I think it was a couple/few months after getting my ticket that I finally passed the 5 wpm. And, yes, for the first two or three years I worked a lot of HF, on 10M anyway, and always worked a pileup if I heard one, always worked DX if I happened to hear someone during the weekday on my lunchhour and can't think of a time when I have failed to "get through." So, don't look now, Larry, you're wrong, as usual. Sneer away....it becomes you. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: No it only becomes vulgar when chosen as a vanity call for the purpose of "getting in someone's face". If a person were to choose it because there name was something like "Tonya Irene Tidwell" and they wanted their initials, it is not vulgar. (snip) However, given the topic of this discussion (children and the ARS one step closer to extinction), how is one supposed to know the difference between the in your face "TIT" and the "TIT" initials? In the end, without a specific context, it's just a callsign. And how would a callsign bring the ARS one step closer to extinction? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Thank you. And, as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word "tit" from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em. *Anyone* who thinks kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is around--and I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics. Sad but true. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... Your message didn't show up on my server, Kim. So I'll use Leo's message (thanks, Leo) to post my response. Anyway, yes, I also seem to remember your callsign wasn't an issue until after you disagreed with Larry and friends. Only at that point did they decide to focus on your callsign to distract from the counter-arguments you made. However, regardless of how it started, that is certainly how your callsign is being used now. It now seems Larry and some of his friends would rather belittle your callsign than seriously respond to your comments on various issues. Of course, some, on the other hand, are simply using your callsign in the same manner as the codswallop of the typical newsgroup troll (including Larry on occasion). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Yep. Period. That's the end of the story ;) Kim W5TIT |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:12:59 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Leo wrote: You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in conversation. Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana :) ) and see if they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking about the day before...... Actually that doesn't seem like a very good example, "Leo". You'd get the same result whether the guy wore the banana in the front or in the rear of his pants. ROFL! And *that* kind folks, is the retort of the week! Good one Dave. I wonder if Dave is basing his statement on first-hand empirical evidence... :) - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:24:14 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: Clearly, letters only become vulgar when one attaches a specific meaning to them. Without a context to make "TIT," or other such letters, vulgar, I can't really envision a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping a child out of Amateur Radio simply because those letters appear in a callsign. The "context" is self-evident. It is a well- known vulgarity referring to a woman's breasts in a connotation which is generally considered to be of a sexual nature. (snip) The "vulgarity" and "of a sexual nature" is self-evident to you, Larry. Funk & Wagnals describes "tit" as "teat, breast or nipple." Princeton University's WordWeb defines "tit" as "either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman" or "the small projection of a mammary gland." And, of course, both mention a "small insectivorous bird." Many farm animals have teats or "tits," but most don't consider them to be "of a sexual nature." (snip) Would you as aggressively challenge one of those guys, like you've done with Kim, if any one of them were active in this newsgroup? Yes, I would. Even if those call signs were issued sequentially, there is no reason for the licensee to keep them and use them on the air if they are of an objectionable nature. The FCC would certainly honor their request for a call sign reassignment. Anyone who kept and used such a call would be subject to the same questions regarding their motives as is Kim. Then you have a lot of aggressive questioning to do. In addition to the examples given before (containing either "TIT" and "ASS"), I found about a dozen more with the same suffixes and several dozen more with other questionable suffixes (GAY, FAG, LEZ, CUM, SEX, and so on). At this stage in the search, I suspect there may eventually be several hundred callsigns you might object to. Given that, and the amount of time you've spent just questioning Kim alone, you may have decades of aggressive questioning still to do before you finish the entire list. Of course, the more logical approach would to discuss this with the FCC instead. After all, if getting rid of "questionable" callsigns in a "family-oriented hobbyist radio service" is your true goal, that would be the most appropriate, and effective, way to do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Well said, Dwight! 73, Leo |
"Kim" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... And how would a callsign bring the ARS one step closer to extinction? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of. Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well, I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third) impression involved such callsigns. as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word [word deleted] from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em. That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it from your callsign. But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior. And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate behavior. Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc. I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed, 'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is much more likely to learn that lesson. *Anyone* who thinks kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is around--and I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics. But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all behavior is appropriate in all contexts. Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are called, etc. Sad but true. The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: No it only becomes vulgar when chosen as a vanity call for the purpose of "getting in someone's face". If a person were to choose it because there name was something like "Tonya Irene Tidwell" and they wanted their initials, it is not vulgar. (snip) However, given the topic of this discussion (children and the ARS one step closer to extinction), how is one supposed to know the difference between the in your face "TIT" and the "TIT" initials? In the end, without a specific context, it's just a callsign. IIRC kim chose the call sign on a dare because of the "TIT". Now why would anyone challenge someone to chose that callsign unless they saw the "TIT" had some kind of in your face or sexual reference? That is exactly why she chose the call sign, because of the tit reference. Extremely bad taste. And how would a callsign bring the ARS one step closer to extinction? Picture a senerio where some ham brings his young grandson or granddaughter to a ham meeting or a field day to introduce them to amateur radio. They walk in and there stands some broad with an XL size tee shirt on that is still two sizes too small, with a call sign like that across her chest. Not a very good statement for ham radio. |
N2EY wrote:
"Kim" wrote in message ... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... And how would a callsign bring the ARS one step closer to extinction? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of. Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well, I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third) impression involved such callsigns. as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word [word deleted] from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em. That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it from your callsign. But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior. And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate behavior. Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc. I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed, 'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is much more likely to learn that lesson. *Anyone* who thinks kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is around--and I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics. But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all behavior is appropriate in all contexts. Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are called, etc. Sad but true. The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately. 73 de Jim, N2EY But kim has already stated she dosen't care what anyone else thinks, which is the general attitude of people with little or no taste. |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim" wrote: Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I "took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided to take a dislike to my callsign. Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude; or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to express it. The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to support your observation, Kim. Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign" that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the callsign): "It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues." This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him - it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package', as it were. You are mistaken, Leo. That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced" about Kim's callsign. The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement "It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues." simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here on rrap, in use by its holder. IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement. In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was for-real! Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on experiences here, not on prejudice. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
Leo wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim" wrote: Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I "took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided to take a dislike to my callsign. Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude; or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to express it. The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to support your observation, Kim. Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign" that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the callsign): "It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues." This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him - it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package', as it were. You are mistaken, Leo. That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced" about Kim's callsign. The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement "It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues." simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here on rrap, in use by its holder. IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement. In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was for-real! Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on experiences here, not on prejudice. 73 de Jim, N2EY And I might add, if I were trying to introduce my grandson or granddaughter to amateur radio, do you think I would walk up to kim and say, "I would like you to meet kim, her callsign is W5TIT." Hardly, she would be the one person I would steer them away from as I would certainly like to present better examples of what amateur radio is about. |
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:38:24 -0700, JJ
wrote: But kim has already stated she dosen't care what anyone else thinks, which is the general attitude of people with little or no taste. LOL! You do see the irony in this statement, I hope..... :) 73, Leo |
In article , Leo
writes: On 22 Jan 2004 09:39:22 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Leo wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim" wrote: Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I "took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided to take a dislike to my callsign. Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude; or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to express it. The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to support your observation, Kim. Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign" that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the callsign): "It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues." This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him - it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package', as it were. You are mistaken, Leo. That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced" about Kim's callsign. The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement "It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues." simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here on rrap, in use by its holder. IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement. In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was for-real! Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on experiences here, not on prejudice. You are saying that your opinion was formed based on experiences here, and not simply on the callsign, aren't you? Nope. I'm saying that I didn't have an opinion until I encountered the callsign here. Your statement that you did not pre-judge certainly enforces this, does it not? Nope. All my statement says is that I did not have an opinion until I saw the callsign. And at first I thought it wasn't a real, FCC issued callsign, but simply a way of staying anonymous. Like you do, "Leo". I figured that the person using it here chose it as a screen name because FCC wouldn't issue such a call. I was mistaken - FCC *would* issue it, but only as a vanity. Which surprised the [expletive deleted] out of me! I keep hearing that the callsign is inappropriate, but what you really mean that it is a combination of factors - right? Wrong. The callsign, and others like it, are simply inappropriate for the ARS. Just my opinion. That FCC allows them and that hams choose them doesn't make them any more appropriate for the ARS. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:47:09 GMT, Leo wrote:
On 23 Jan 2004 00:59:25 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: snip Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on experiences here, not on prejudice. You are saying that your opinion was formed based on experiences here, and not simply on the callsign, aren't you? Nope. Guess this is the part that confuses me, Jim - in the first sentence above, you state that you formed your opinion of Kim's callsign based on experiences here. In the decond sentence, you said "nope" to exactly the same thing.... I'm confused! ....and spelling challenged too. Make that 'second' sentence (what the H$%% is a decond?? I dunno)....... 73, Leo ...again snip 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
Leo wrote:
...and spelling challenged too. Make that 'second' sentence (what the H$%% is a decond?? I dunno)....... Don't worry about it Leo, anyone who can't spell a word more than one way simply has no imegintion. |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "Don't look now, Larry" but I am a CODED Tech+. Don't even tell me you have missed that for the past umpteenth years! I have been a CODED Tech+ nearly since the beginning of being an amateur. I think it was a couple/few months after getting my ticket that I finally passed the 5 wpm. And, yes, for the first two or three years I worked a lot of HF, on 10M anyway, and always worked a pileup if I heard one, always worked DX if I happened to hear someone during the weekday on my lunchhour and can't think of a time when I have failed to "get through." So, don't look now, Larry, you're wrong, as usual. Sneer away....it becomes you. Kim W5TIT Kim: Yes, you're right. I was wrong. I admit my mistake. Too bad you won't do the same and change your call sign. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:13:59 -0700, JJ
wrote: Leo wrote: ...and spelling challenged too. Make that 'second' sentence (what the H$%% is a decond?? I dunno)....... Don't worry about it Leo, anyone who can't spell a word more than one way simply has no imegintion. Absalutely right! 73, Leo |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Kim" wrote in message ... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... And how would a callsign bring the ARS one step closer to extinction? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of. It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. And, if must "finally realize" anything about a callsign, then it is definitely because they took their own path getting there; not because anyone led them there. To make that a bearer's responsibility to "the community of man" is ridiculous and I don't wear that crap. Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well, I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third) impression involved such callsigns. Then, they'd best just keep their kids out of sports, school, movies, churches; in fact, just lock 'em up and keep 'em safe. The responsibility of the parent is to teach what is vulgar and what is not. My callsign is not vulgar. The implication that breasts are something to hide, be embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar act. as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word [word deleted] from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em. That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it from your callsign. See first sentence above. But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior. And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate behavior. See second sentence above. Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc. And, it is not the responsibility of "the community" to see that a kid doesn't learn all that stuff and think it's attractive. It's the responsibility of the parents, family, and anyone personally involved with the raising and upbringing of a kid. I taught my kids that all "that stuff" was all over the place. One of them learned that it was not attractive and lives responsibly, one of them thought most of it was great and barely accomplishes anything each day. I must have succeeded with one and needed to work a lot harder with the other. They *both* saw the same "community." I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed, 'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is much more likely to learn that lesson. That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they are doing. I'd much rather take advice from someone who's been through what they are preaching against than someone who's never been there. The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it. But the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion. Here, you were sitting right there listening to those lecturers preaching against the evils as they partook in something you believed was evil and you still ignored the value they taught--or at least devalued it, it looks like. *Anyone* who thinks kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is around--and I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics. But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all behavior is appropriate in all contexts. The good work of their parents, no doubt. Pffttt. With regard to breasts, they can be a work of art, a tool of health, the target of the expression of love, or represent some evil, twisted, sense of wrongdoing. I choose the beauty of breasts--not the twisted logic. It's exactly like nude art. I would never gasp at a child looking at a nude statue, or painting, or photo, etc. I would ask them what they found beautiful. Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are called, etc. It's your expression of "those body parts" that, to someone like me, worries me. Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because they are horrible. "Those" body parts can be beautiful or dangerous, and both must be recognized. When someone is pulling their pants down at the doctor--it is quite OK, at least one would think; when someone is pulling their pants down in public--it is quite not OK. However, in the right circumstances both could be exactly the opposite. If a doctor--and this has been done--is about to rape someone, then it's evil. And, I can think of nothing better I would love to do to someone like Saddam Hussein, than to moon him with a thousand milliion asses; or even just one: mine. Sad but true. The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately. 73 de Jim, N2EY Yep. You're exactly right. However, it seems that your "act appropriately" and mine are two entirely different things. And, I'm done--sigh, once again--discussing my callsign. It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's mine. Period. Kim W5TIT |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Leo wrote: ...and spelling challenged too. Make that 'second' sentence (what the H$%% is a decond?? I dunno)....... Don't worry about it Leo, anyone who can't spell a word more than one way simply has no imegintion. ROFLMAO!! Hey, Leo? Another irony...!!!! Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com